Guest guest Posted December 13, 2002 Report Share Posted December 13, 2002 Hi, I have heard that the American Cancer Society counts anyone still alive after five years from diagnosis as cured. If you die five years and two weeks later you were stastictly cured. If this is the case, the figures really don't mean very much. Cliff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2002 Report Share Posted December 13, 2002 Hi Cliff, It is much more convaluted than that. It is almost impossible to use the data as the criteria keeps changing as they play with the numbers etc. I read where, that if a person was deemed cancer free, but died of the aftereffects of the chemo or radiation. Then, that death is not listed as a death from cancer, but a complete cure and count it in their " sucess " category. So in essence they can kill you and call it a cure. Skin cancer, which is very common, but is relatively cured in comparison, was not counted for many years, was eventually included in the stats to show " progress " when computing averages etc. A lot of what is called skin cancer is labeled as such, by the doctor who cuts or burns off each " spot " (usually without biopsy), so a lot of keratoses and other skin conditions are counted in the skin cancer category. There is much more, but I cannot remember it all. regards, Frank Gettingwell , " Cliff Beckwith " <cliffb865@c...> wrote: > Hi, > > I have heard that the American Cancer Society counts anyone still alive > after five years from diagnosis as cured. > > If you die five years and two weeks later you were stastictly cured. > > If this is the case, the figures really don't mean very much. > > Cliff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2002 Report Share Posted December 13, 2002 http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/cancer.html This is a small article about the cure rates. Note, these statements were not made by wild eyed crazies. This is from the New England Journal of Medicine (the flagship publication of establishment medicine) and the doctor who was editor of the journal for the U.S. National Cancer Institute. This probably was very hard for them to finally admit. But that was some time ago, the public relations campaign still goes on extolling the same old propaganda. Frank The Orthodox " War on Cancer " Has Failed " My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure " Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal. (3) Dr. Bailer also says: " The five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before . . . More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being 'cured'. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly. " A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950: " The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focussed largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure. " The report further concluded that " . . . we are losing the war against cancer " and argued for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial progress. (4) Gettingwell , " califpacific <califpacific> " <califpacific> wrote: > Hi Cliff, > > It is much more convaluted than that. It is almost impossible to use > the data as the criteria keeps changing as they play with the numbers > etc. > > I read where, that if a person was deemed cancer free, but died of > the aftereffects of the chemo or radiation. Then, that death is not > listed as a death from cancer, but a complete cure and count it in > their " sucess " category. > > So in essence they can kill you and call it a cure. > > Skin cancer, which is very common, but is relatively cured in > comparison, was not counted for many years, was eventually included > in the stats to show " progress " when computing averages etc. > > A lot of what is called skin cancer is labeled as such, by the doctor > who cuts or burns off each " spot " (usually without biopsy), so a lot > of keratoses and other skin conditions are counted in the skin cancer > category. > > There is much more, but I cannot remember it all. > > regards, > > Frank > > > > Gettingwell , " Cliff Beckwith " <cliffb865@c...> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have heard that the American Cancer Society counts anyone still > alive > > after five years from diagnosis as cured. > > > > If you die five years and two weeks later you were stastictly cured. > > > > If this is the case, the figures really don't mean very much. > > > > Cliff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2002 Report Share Posted December 14, 2002 Cliff Beckwith wrote: > Hi, > > I have heard that the American Cancer Society counts anyone still alive > after five years from diagnosis as cured. > > If you die five years and two weeks later you were stastictly cured. > > If this is the case, the figures really don't mean very much. > > Cliff I believe that what they said is that they will not consider anyone cured if they do not find any cancer activity for a period of five years, but to be in a state of remission. The five year period is just a time marker for those who wish to say that they are or not cured. Morton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2002 Report Share Posted December 18, 2002 - " Cliff Beckwith " <cliffb865 Friday, December 13, 2002 12:03 PM Cancer cure rates > Hi, > > I have heard that the American Cancer Society counts anyone still alive > after five years from diagnosis as cured. > > If you die five years and two weeks later you were stastictly cured. > > If this is the case, the figures really don't mean very much. > > Cliff And as the docs are now diagnosing & treating cancers at a much earlier stage than in previous years, the chances of someone living more than five years becomes greater even if their treatments do absolutely nothing to help that person. Alobar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.